Man is not intrinsically evil, any more than his nearest relative, the chimpanzee, is intrinsically evil. Neither is capable of anything more than interacting with his environment. When we have sufficiently evolved and are comfortable within our environment we are capable of behaving intelligently. A rudimentary understanding of the basic math involved in an exponential growth in population eventually outstripping an arithmetic growth in food production as well as zero growth of our finite planet, should lead to confronting the rate of reproduction. While the chimp may not realize that problem his environment will provide a natural solution, one way or another. I think that our present level o understanding as a species is only slightly more advanced than that of our simian ancestors. So we can hardly expect to see much more progress through following the prescribed religious remedies of selflessness, than we have achieved in several thousands of years of human existence. We remain caught in the endless repetition of the cycle of wars, famines, diseases; praying and preaching the whole time. So long as we cling to the remedies of "threats of hell and hopes of paradise" to regulate human behavior, we can scarcely expect to produce very different results than we have in the past few centuries. I don't think the solution to our problems is the development of one more "religion" but rather the realization that we are more risen ape than fallen angel. A healthy respect for demonstrable scientific facts and the recognition that, if we are to progress at all, we must stop expecting mythical gods to do the things we avoid doing for ourselves. IMHO
++++++++++++++++++++++++
07-20-05, 09:18 PM
Professor
Well said, Frank. Cool
07-20-05, 10:46 PM
mike74
I agree with frank on the one more relgion. Its never worked in the past so why should it work now? But still not real sure about the evolution theory... After all it is still a theory. Granted good arguments, but no real definate proof. As far as Creationalism its niether theory nor proven fact, its based on faith. In which you either believe it or you dont, but neither has real concrete totaly true blue hold it in your hand you cant argue with fact. So you either go with one or the other bont dont tell me its scientific fact when the experts cant even prove either one!
If their is (factual evidence beyond arguement, or doubt)on either one of the theory or a faith I'd like to see a good reference I can go look at! A web site would be nice, or a good reference of some sorts.
P.S. Selflessness would you look at that word the same way if some brillient nonreligous person perscribe it to people? Just becuase it comes out of a book religous people follow sheepeshly or otherwise doesnt mean its not a good quality to live by! That doesnt mean it will solve all problems but alot would be! Why do you think people rob? Its either becuase of selfishness, or hunger? Maybe even the reason the U.S. is in Iraq? What if the rich oil or any other big buisness that stand to gane by such blood shed were not so selfish? Would we be their; killing people and getting killed?(That is if you perscribe to this theory of why the U.S. is in Iraq) Just becuase a religous figure you don like perscribe it 2 centuries ago dont make it wrong for today! I'm not saying its the answer, but just arguing you cant leave this out becuase of a book you would like to burn!
07-21-05, 01:52 AM
mike74
Jed Macosko, a young research molecular biologist at the University of California, Berkeley, and a statement signer, said, "It is time for defenders of Darwin to engage in serious dialogue and debate with their scientific critics. Science can't grow where institutional gatekeepers try to prevent new challengers from being heard."
Whats up with this? How come their is no debate? Not all of the scientist that challenge evolution are religous, but are like me... just not convenced!
Here are some sites for arguements:
http://www.reviewevolution.com/press/pressRelease_100Scientists.phphttp://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_smu1992.htmhttp://www.creationevolution.net/Their are more to come when I have a tad bit more time, but honestly why do the evolutionist not debate the experts on the other end of the spektrum? Why do they label them and ignor them instead... Sounds offly familier to the religous folx we like to criticize so much!
(I brought this point up becuase it keeps coming up) I know its not totaly related.... but then again maybe evolution is a new religion of mythical ancestories, and unproven theories! Big Grin
This message has been edited. Last edited by: mike74, 07-21-05 03:28 AM
07-21-05, 02:55 AM
babthrower
frankvan said:
"... we are more risen ape than fallen angel."
I really like the way you get to the kernel, Frank. You really ought not to be so humble about your opinion.
You brought up an important point that I had not mentioned. It is laziness that leads humans to put all of the responsibility for decision-making on the shoulders of mythical gods.
To the gods we ascribe human emotions: pride, lust, jealousy, thirst for vengeance, and so forth. (Zeus was lustful, Jehovah was vengeful.)
Because we describe the gods as perfect, holy, absolutely good, and so forth, we can then ascribe our own lust, jealousy, vengefulness, greed, pride and so forth, to the gods, and say that our own primitively-driven urges are theirs. That ennobles the urges, and justifies our acts; we proceed, 'praying and preaching the whole time'.
"A healthy respect for demonstrable scientific facts and the recognition that, if we are to progress at all, we must stop expecting mythical gods to do the things we avoid doing for ourselves."
If only. In despair of this eminently rational idea gaining foothold, I resort to the notion that humans are so limited that unless there is a deus to aspire to or to hold responsible, progress may not be sustainable.
Thus the desperate resolve that we must invent a better god.
07-21-05, 03:59 AM
mike74
"Would it not be necessary to found a new religion that is not tradition-bound in order to arrive at humane means of population control?"
"Thus the desperate resolve that we must invent a better god."
babthrower Are these not your own words?????
And it is not proven we came from apes nor fallen angles, and I subscribe to neither theories! If you want to be scientific arent you suppost to go back facts rather then theories, or even faith? But then again I guess evolution is a new religion!
"It is laziness that leads humans to put all of the responsibility for decision-making on the shoulders of mythical gods."
You are right in this thought and its backs up my points Razz A book, or God or whatever says not to do so and so and such and such, and live this way and that! But Nobody ever does this and that, or acts so and so! ITs always soso! Be tru to thine self and tha hell with all others(excuse my french Red Face)!!! What ever is supreme that is supreme will forgive in another life! Thats Laziness! and Selfishness.... But unfortunatly most are not so selfless... Maybe becuase it doesnt make sense to someone who came from a monkey Big Grin Wink!!!! LOL Sorry couldnt resist that! Its all in good fun Big Grin!
"A healthy respect for demonstrable scientific facts and the recognition that, if we are to progress at all, we must stop expecting mythical gods to do the things we avoid doing for ourselves."
You mean like loving your neighbor, loving your enemy(Hmmmm keep your friends close but you enemies closer), or instead of being a prideful...aragent SOB be humble and nice to people even if you think less of them!?!?
Or once again are we talking about the unproven theories you like to promote.
LOL ok so we went from Phisics to, the bible being the worst book on earth, to new religons, and now we are on the evolution THEORY. Anybody care for politics? LOL or have we covered that one also?
07-21-05, 06:38 PM
frankvan
" And it is not proven we came from apes nor fallen angles, and I subscribe to neither theories! If you want to be scientific arent you suppost to go back facts rather then theories, or even faith? But then again I guess evolution is a new religion!" Mike74
No, it isn't proven, in the sense that a geometric theorem can be proven, but to insinuate that the theory of evolution is equivalent to the "theory that man was created in God's image" is ridiculous. The theory of evolution is a scientific theory which has survived over two hundred years of having been tested by every other existing science imaginable. A scientific theory may start out as a hunch, some inquisitive observer conjectures as to why do certain things take place. He makes use of what knowledge he has to speculate as to a reasonable explanation for his observations. He forms an hypothesis. And, if it seems to make sense as to reasonably explain what he sought to prove, he proceeds to consult other experts in his field. He conducts experiments. Some experiments may prove his original hypothesis wrong and he discards it, but if it fails to disprove it it may only add some bit of reinforcement to it. As Einstein famously observed, "A thousand experiments may not prove me right, a single experiment could prove me wrong". Darwin's theory of natural selection has been refined and modified and tested for centuries and has not been proven, perhaps, but it has certainly not been discredited either, Paleontology, zoology, biology, archaeology, have added to the vast accumulation of supporting evidence of the basic premise, even to the fairly recent contribution of DNA. Does the fact that there is a more than 98.5% match between man's DNA and that of his chimpanzee relative raise any questions in your mind? Creationism, on the other hand, is based on the notion that if there is something that we cannot prove or explain completely, it must have some magical, supernatural, explanation. Perhaps even, one foretold by ancient soothsayers, and perpetuated with infinite variations, and considerable profit, by "holy" men who earn a livelihood preaching it.
07-21-05, 07:56 PM
mike74
Evolution promotes a god its called nature.. natural selction. But how can everything run so mechanically and it just be by chance? Some star billions of years ago farted and oops we are here! I think you notion is just as hard to swallow as creationalism! I can understand why your so called experts do not debate with other scientist who have big questions about evolution! They have nothing to prove their theories just hersay, and speculations!
Damn they say pigs organs can replace ours if we need them; can some one then theorise that maybe we came from pigs... I've also heard that same about sheep! Besides the more proof so far these so called scientist find that they think will proove their theory it takes them 2 steps back! I bet if you looked really hard you could also find stuff that would support the creation theory or faith... But I forget you've been brain washed and indoctrinated by these so called scientistic priest who turn theory into fact with speculations! But I guess that is ok as long as it is capable for you to explain away something you dont want to comprehend!
Ohhh by the way Creationalism has survived much longer then evolution. And their are very good theories behind it, not just religous implications... even though your hatred for religous thinkers, or someone who may have a differing opinion has blinded you to this fact.
To leave creationalism out and preach we came from apes without any proof is foolish! Its the equivelent of people saying the world is flat! Their where good arguements for it but no solid proof! And they condemnd those who thought it was round.... Your no different then these people!
07-21-05, 08:28 PM
babthrower
Mike laments: "... they say pigs organs can replace ours if we need them; can some one then theorise that maybe we came from pigs."
It's far, far worse than that, I'm afraid, Mike. The oldest human ancestor on land was a kind of segmented worm.
(They say if you place a paper bag over your mouth and nose it will stop you hyperventilating. It's a purely mechanical response, it increases the carbon dioxide in your blood. But it's not there by chance. It's a response that survived because it helped a very ancient non-human ancestor to adjust its breating rate. Hope it works for you.)
07-22-05, 01:12 AM
mike74
Their is also another possibility.... Maybe oxygen and carbon dioxcide was placed here so we can live along with other elements to keep us alive.... But thats also just a theory.
07-22-05, 01:39 AM
mike74
if you take a fish out of water what happends? If you put a man under water what happends? Or if say you have a family of fish and you slowly decrease the water over a long period of time do you really think he will learn to lose its gills so he can get oxigen out of the air instead of water or even one of his offsprings?
I guess you mean to tell me that man was on this planet and did not have any lungs... but over a period of time grew some? Thats about as far fetch as thinking of some kind of mystical god! 1st off if that where the case then I guess with the ozone layer getting depleted sooner or later we will grow skin that is able to filter ultra violet rays?
07-22-05, 08:45 AM
babthrower
[QUOTE]Originally posted by mike74:
"...if say you have a family of fish and you slowly decrease the water over a long period of time do you really think he will learn to lose its gills so he can get oxigen out of the air instead of water or even one of his offsprings?"
Actually, one of the discarded lines of evolution theory, from a French guy named Lamarcke, went something like that. He thought that during a lifetime, a body adapts to its changing surroundings. These adaptations would be passed on to the offspring. So if an antelope which usually feeds on grass found itself in a dryer environment, in which the grass dried up, it would eat leaves; and as the leaves (on the trees) became eaten up, it would reach higher into the branches and thus stretch its neck over time. Then when it reproduced, its young would inherit that slightly longer neck. And so forth.
But the theory (Lamarckism) was discarded. It just didn't work. Now in modern times we know why it didn't. The materials in the egg and sperm that determine the traits are there from the parent animal's birth (sometimes there is a change caused by radiation or some other factor during the parent's life, but this change is random). The materials that carry the parent's traits -- let's call them genetic materials -- are not affected by the parent's life experience.
But you hafta give Lamarcke credit. He knew there had to be some explanation for the evidence in ancient rocks for the fact that at one time the number of species was much less, and the structures of the animals were such that it is quite obvious that modern variations descended from them. In some living species which have been selected not naturally but deliberately, e.g. dogs, these varieties have evolved over not millions, but hundreds of years.
If the definition of a species is a group that interbreeds naturally, then today we have 'species' of dogs. Interbreed the smallest known adult dog, a Yorkie 2.5 inches tall by 3.75 inches long, weighing 4 ounces, with the largest ever dog, an Old English Mastiff that weighed 343 lbs and was 8 feet 3 inches long from nose to tail. Now, this interbreeding must occur as it would in nature (no artificial insemination, no human interference) and the offspring must survive to breed and pass on its traits. Couldn't happen.
(Actually this could never happen for other reasons than physical incompatibility, the little dog died of old age and besides they were both male but you see my point.)
My point: Humans have produced, arguably, at least 2 species of dog, and done it in less than 1,000 years. We know that because historians show that there were only a few varieties of dog in the year 1,000 A.D., all purpose-bred for hunting, herding, or (in Asia) cute pets. The artificial selection methods used were very simple: a known good retriever was bred with another known good retriever and the pups sold for more money. Overall the system worked. This shows that dog breeders understood that parental traits could be passed on to offspring.
So that if dogs were bred to produce smaller and smaller dogs, in time all members of the variety would be smaller than the ancestors.
Smart people like those dog breeders use their eyes and their brains. They don't deny the evidence of their own eyes for the sake of something they read in some old book.
07-22-05, 09:41 AM
newnickname
Mike, you're expressing incredulity at evolution without, it seems, having taken enough time to look into it properly.
Lungfish are around today. They show us how gill-breathing animals could have evolved lungs. People appeared long after lungs had evolved in many species - man did not grow lungs. Evolution does not occur within one generation - you can't prove or disprove evolution by tormenting one family of fish.
You seem to have caught the Creationist confusion over the word 'theory'. All scientific explanations of the observed world are called 'theories'. In everyday English, 'theory' is sometimes taken to mean 'guess' or 'hunch', but in science it means an explanation.
In science there are no 'rock-solid facts'. Science is based on assumptions such as the nature of the universe doesn't change arbitrarily from one moment to the next - but we can't know that for sure. The sun may not rise tomorrow. Evolution is a 'theory', but so are explanations of gravity, relativity and all the other basics of contemporary science. None of them are absolutely certain and proved. They are all simply the best explanations we have so far, of all the evidence we have so far. They are also all scientific, in that they are based on observations anyone ('in theory') can make, and they can be disproved by new evidence, or replaced by better theories.
Evolution could be disproved at any time. If just one fossil was found out of the order in time predicted by the theory, the theory would collapse. Of the millions of fossils we have uncovered, not one has been out of place.
Creationism is not a scientific theory partly because it can never be disproved. No matter what questions are raised about it, they can be answered by "that's just how God wants it".
07-22-05, 10:54 AM
mike74
quote:
But the theory (Lamarckism) was discarded. It just didn't work. Now in modern times we know why it didn't. The materials in the egg and sperm that determine the traits are there from the parent animal's birth (sometimes there is a change caused by radiation or some other factor during the parent's life, but this change is random). The materials that carry the parent's traits -- let's call them genetic materials -- are not affected by the parent's life experience.
I think this is clear enough evidence evolution has holes in it!.... And I dont deny evolution becuase of any book ecept the ones in public schools... at least the ones used when i went to school, they may have changed sense. But smart people also dont deny something just becuase they have a prejudice towards religous people, or a certian religion.
NNN has Said
"You seem to have caught the Creationist confusion over the word 'theory'. All scientific explanations of the observed world are called 'theories'. In everyday English, 'theory' is sometimes taken to mean 'guess' or 'hunch', but in science it means an explanation."
So by your own words I am right, its just a belief system, as is most religions or creationalism! Becuase basically religions are formed from explinations of life and the writers surroundings. The only difference is you say nature showed, and you studied, and they would say god showed and they observed it.
Creationalism religous or otherwise is based off
a collection of facts, but veiwed in a different light. You may say the monkey developed a tail over years of evolution becuase he needed a way to hang from a tree to get a certian type fruit he might eat, and a creationalist would say he was made that way so he could have a way to hang and eat fruit. Same conclution, but different beginings, but neither can be proven, and neither is a brainless thought process just different points of veiw, Kinda like you see the glass half full and I might see it half empty. I say tomatoe, but you might say Tumaghtoo!
And by the way I never said evolution is not a arguable theory, just that their are not enough facts, or proven Hypothisis behind the theory that make it any beter then creationalism. My passion is really not to argue which one is more beter then the other. LOL I will. Admittedly i do think creationalism has more backbone in it then evolution(But thats just an opinion, as well as is your point of veiw), but thats not to say evolution doesnt have some interesting points of veiw. But you want listen to another point of veiw becuase you are closed minded, becuase of prejudices towards others who may think or see the world differently then you, but your blinded by prejudices. Neither theory is concrete, but just a belief sytem. Again you seem to be as bad as the religous folx you hate so much!.... Or so it would seem.
But in light of the conversation we all can go round and round about this, neither giving way to the other, but I have to admit I have learned alot in this discussion both about evolution, creationalism, and people! I've enjoyed the debate eminsly. LOL I'm sure you have enjoyed my spelling. I didnt know aitheist where as dogmatic about their beliefs as the christian I've debated on the other side of the argument scale, but thats cool it makes the debate more enjoyable! Wink
This message has been edited. Last edited by: mike74, 07-22-05 12:30 PM
07-22-05, 11:44 AM
mike74
P.S. Heres another side of the lungfish argument... it is a Christian site, and it does have some holes in it also.... but it is after all a different point of veiw.
Did_God_Use_Evolution_To_Create_Life_Part_2 If you care to veiw another point of veiw and way in the facts, and opinions in your own mind. If its not too closed of course. Wink
07-22-05, 12:07 PM
babthrower
Mike: Lamarckism and Darwinism are both evolution theories. Lamarckism was discarded a hundred years ago because it didn't work. Darwinism is alive and well and robust and doing just fine, thank you very much.
Mike, I thought you understood from the start that no one knows anything for sure. So we could play let's pretend for a while.
Mike goes out in the morning and sees that his driveway is all wet. "Must have rained", Mike says to himself. That's a theory. But is it true? Mike looks around, and notices that the street is dry, the tops of the cars parked along the curb are dry, and the trees are not dripping.
Scratching his head, he says, "Looks like it didn't rain. Maybe my wife got up early and put the sprinkler on." He has discarded his first theory because it doesn't work. He's come up with anther theory. Now he'll test the new one.
So he goes along the side of the house and sure enough, the hose is attached to the faucet and to the sprinkler head, and the whole area which the water from the sprinkler can reach is in fact wet. "Humph," says MIke, "for sure I know now what happened." But he doesn't want to be hasty. He sets up a question to test the theory.
"If the sprinkler is the cause, then the water will stop at the perimeter," Mike reasons. "But if there is water beyond the perimeter, this fact is enough to falsify the theory: the sprinkler cannot have caused the wet area, at least not all of it." He is quite prepared, you see, to discard this theory, too, if the evidence does not support it.
But Mike sees that the wet area does not go beyond the sprinkler's range. So he thinks he'll show off a little to his wife. He returns to the bedroom, wakes her up, and says, I see you sprinkled the lawn this morning.
All he gets is an outraged glare. "I did not. What are you, nuts?" And goes back to sleep.
"She must be lying," Mike says to himself. "No one else lives here. It had to be her."
He has received evidence, his wife's statement, that puts his theory into question. But he clings to his theory, and decides to reject his wife's statement.
He goes out and walks around, studying the situation from every angle. No new data. His wife lied for sure. But why?
So he goes indoors, makes a cup of coffee, and switches on the television news. He learns that a phantom prankster has been going all over town, sprinkling people's lawns as they sleep!
"My theory was wrong!" Mike groans. So he goes into the bedroom and wakes his wife to tell her he was wrong and that she didn't lie about the sprinkler after all. "Sorry", he says.
And sorry indeed he is, after she's through explaining to him just what she thinks of someone who wakes her twice about some stupid sprinkler.
But has Mike finally got a correct theory? Did the phantom prankster turn on Mike's sprinkler?
No one knows. There might be another explanation:
- a copycat phantom sprinkler
- Mike or Mike's wife was sleepwalking
- a fluke rainstorm, very very localized (it could happen!)
- etc.
*******************************
Here's the scoop. A scientific theory, which each of Mike's theories were, can be falsified. Did it rain? No, that's false, because the pattern of wet is not consistent with a rainfall -- at least a normal one.
An unscientific theory, on the contrary, can never be falsified, because the data cannot be measured or verified.
Mike's auntie tells him that many years ago, the night before her husband died, she had a precognitive dream: in it, she saw him lying in a coffin. She had advance warning from beyond that he would die.
"Just a coincideence", Mike says.
No, not at all, his auntie tells him. It was way too clear to be an ordinary dream. It was definitely a supernatural experience.
Mike's cousin, his Auntie's daughter, says, "Yes, it's true, she told me right after he died that she had had the dream."
Mike's other cousin says, "Nah, what she said right after he died was that she once had a dream about someone lying in a coffin, and that now that he was dead, she was sure it was a warning that he was going to die."
What possible test could you dream up to find out who has the most reliable memory of the events?
So you say to yourself, "Auntie must have the second sight, all right, because Auntie wouldn't lie."
And that's not a scientific theory. That's what's called a metaphysical theory. It cannot be tested. Auntie may not be lying. Auntie may have reconstructed her memory quite innocently. There's no way to tell.
Creationism is a metaphysical theory. Three thousand years ago some prophet who believes he is in touch with the creator of the universe tells some people that the creator told him in confidence (no witnesses present) that he had created the universe in 7 days. Some of the hearers write this down. Three thousand years later you read it in a book. You accept this theory as true.
That's your privilege. Mine is to put my faith in Darwinism. When something better comes along, I'll put my faith in that.
07-22-05, 01:53 PM
mike74
I dont remember ever stating it was true, but that alot of hypothisis could lead to this explination.
And I never said you did not have the right to believe in evolutionism. You can believe in anything your heart desires. If you tell me pigs can fly and you believe it then good for you. But dont sit here and tell me you found a wing next to a set of pigs bones and that makes for evolution, and creationalism is nolonger a valid theory. My arguement is this dont call someone brainless becuase they may veiw the world different then you, and never assume a theory is not scientific becuase you don agree with it, or that alot of religous folx were the 1st to assume this explanation. And just becuase it may have come from religous mind, doesnt mean it can not be theorised Scientificaly. Maybe the faith aspect cant, but just As no one cant realy disprove evolution, being that none of us can travel millions, or billions of years in the past and say see I told yah so, neither can someone go back and stand shoulder to shoulder with Adam or any other religous figures of creationalism, and say look he is the only one here hes gotta be the 1st.
7 days, 7 thousand years, or even 7 billion years You still cant say that this theory both scientific or metaphysical is a not little intreaging, and does make for some interesting explanations. Creationalims can be tested just as much as evolution. You test the mechanicability of everything in creationalism. Like the sun, the moon, the tide, our atmosphere, or the oxygen we breathe. All of these things, and much more make up a living environment. All work together for this purpose. Just like a car engine. You have pistons, batery, spark pluggs, an altinator, and many other stuff that where created to make that car run. I know alot of these examples can be used also to explian certian aspect of evolution, but again my point is both if you think about it take quite a bit of thought both scientificaly, and philisophicly to make an explination of the 2! Granted one can just say God made the earth, the sun, and the moon and put no thought into it, but You can put alot of thought, and explantion both scientificaly, and metaphysicaly. One could also say we just came from apes and not put much thought into it. Some would say why not we look a lot similer to them, and some people look just like them. But alot of thought from evolution is just speculation also... that is assuming that is what you meant by metaphysical.
07-22-05, 02:47 PM
FredPuli
The film with this title bombed in Britain.Don't wonder why Big Grin
However if the topic here now is really Intelligent Design, then it is an example of thinking as practised throughout human history. The less we 'know' the more we put our faith in some supreme Being or Beings to fill the gaps in our understanding. Some Christians say that mankind tries to play God. Too right. We now do, unaided by prayer, that which hitherto only prayer or miracle could have achieved. 'Barren women' are not prayed for but are given fertility treatment and are 'barren' no more. Women who wish to limit their pregnancies take a pill.Lepers are not saved by the Son of God but even by heathen pharmacists and doctors; just as well, since He has not come back to do any more.Parents do not pray at the bedside of yet another Christian infant's death; they see it outlive them.
There was then no explanation, no theory, to show how these 'miracles' wrought by mankind were achievable. If we could not explain or understand how a virus could possibly exist then it would be because intelligent design (aka God) was involved to make it so. ID had intervened.
Somebody in New Scientist (?) thought that this belief, of there being some 'intelligent design' intervening, was reassuring and comforting to some minds. Given the choice, as it were , between a plane that flew from A to B but needed a pilot to fly it at some points they would be happier than with one that required no outside intervention whatever to do the whole journey. So they prefer to hope or think that there is some grand, intelligent, planner who gives some input, some design, exists or existed rather than that the whole thing is entirely evolved and evolving on its own.
The only intelligent designer needed now is to fill gaps in our knowledge concerning various matters, some of them concerning evolution. Those gaps shall disappear, but never worry, there will still be something else we don't yet understand for the 'intelligent designer' to be taking care of.Since the proponents have not to provide any theory for examination they are in this happy position .For them it is not even 'turtles all the way down'**. Rest assured every time we solve some mystery the I.D.fans will come up with another poser 'explicable' only by intelligent design.In the meantime, just to be safe, the ID fans will exaggerate the complexity of organisms or distort or deliberately defame scientists' findings .
It is not as though the intelligent design is intelligent. As a patient in a hospital here said, observing her fellows, "If this is intelligent design then it's about time for a manufacturer's recall" Wink And that was just a lay person. The subtleties are more than that bald statement would suggest.
** Turtles: An old lady's theory that the world was standing on a giant turtle. Asked what the turtle was standing on she replied "Another turtle. It's turtles, turtles all the way down !"
07-22-05, 04:20 PM
babthrower
mike74 has this advice for me:
"...never assume a theory is not scientific becuase you don agree with it..."
I didn't say the creationist theory is is not scientific because I don't agree with it. I said I don't agree with it because it's not scientific.
So. Enough of that particular discussion.
Fred says:
"... never worry, there will still be something else we don't yet understand ..."
Too true! Confused But how awful if we knew everything!
What I don't understand about the 'intelligent design' dudes is that they ignore the obvious. For every instance of good structure, there are three of bad structure.
Natural selection is a much better explanation for the 'errors'. People crawled on all four's. Then the swamps dried up and the trees died, and people were living on a plain. Now it was useful to stand up on hind legs. So they did! Awkwardly, painfully, but they did. Through natural selection those whose backs could stand the stress survived -- marginally -- better. But over time were minor adjustments in pelvises, thighs, knees, lower backs, that made the upright stance more effective. This history of skeletal evolution is in the fossils.
But humans don't have good backs.
If the human back is the result of design, it was anything but intelligent design.
07-22-05, 06:23 PM
frankvan
I think that intelligent design made more sense when the whole thing was accomplished in seven days, the earth was the center of the universe, and the sun circled the earth. But with all this empty space, all these billions of years, all the discarded models along the way, for what purpose? To produce people?? I find it rather hard to swallow. Confused
07-22-05, 07:44 PM
newnickname
What the bleep do we know?
Mike, your 'lungfish' link also seems to misunderstand evolution. Evolution happens gradually, fitfully. Most species there have ever been have died out, because they couldn't adapt quickly enough. No species took sudden, huge leaps; one afternoon deciding, for example, "Hey, lets bury ourselves in mud for seven years."
The ability to lie dormant in hard times would develop gradually. (You can skip this next bit if you're eating.) The ability to secrete protective mucus is no big deal. Our own skin secretes stuff all the time. Early lungfish, those who didn't secrete so much, would have had poorer survival rates, and emerged from mud damaged and less able to survive and reproduce. The strong secreters would fare better, and have more offspring, who would also have more offspring... and so on.
(You're right that this is speculation. But it's speculation that doesn't require suspension of the laws of the universe. It sticks to the scientific assumption that the basic behaviour of the world around us doesn't change arbitrarily from moment to moment. It doesn't require miracles. As soon as you introduce miracles - divine whims and Shazams! - you are no longer really explaining, because such deus ex machina can 'explain' anything and everything - "Because that's just how the Divinity does it. End of discussion.")
The page you link to seem to assume that an organism has to have 100% of a trait, right away. That's not so.
eyes (ha ha) for example. What good is 50% of an eye? A whole lot of good. Ask anyone with impaired vision if they'd rather have no vision at all. We can see how eyes might have evolved gradually, through natural selection. Looking at the human eye (for example) as it is now, shaking your head and saying, "Well, I can't imagine how that evolved." is not a convincing argument against evolution. We can work it out.
Looking at one amazing trait or instinct as it stands today and then saying evolution must be impossible because you can't see how that came about, is like watching someone juggle ten flaming clubs and saying it's impossible - wouldn't he have died the first time he tried it?
Hibernation for example. How (to borrow the question from your link) did the first bear manage to sleep for months without food? It didn't. The species started off slowly (like a juggler with a couple of tennis balls).
Those bears (or bear-ancestors) able to sleep longer and take it easy in the winter months would have had a better chance of survival, and consequent reproduction, than those who rushed around using up energy when food was scarce. Sleeping longer and being lazy when there's no food are traits that can be passed on. Hibernation, like the other mind-boggling examples on that page, came about gradually.
Why should symbiosis be impossible in evolution? Evolution is about surviving in a particular environment, and that environment includes other organisms. Of course species could adapt to each other, until a point is reached when they've become so specialized it looks like magic.
The world around is is stunningly complex. That doesn't mean we should give up trying to understand it and cling to creation myths instead.
07-23-05, 11:31 AM
babthrower
quote:
Look at eyes (ha ha) for example. What good is 50% of an eye? A whole lot of good.
says NNN.
Actually a lot less than 50% of an eye is good. One model for the evolution of the complex eye such as we see in birds (who have our eyes beat all to heck) starts with an organism that has a few light-sensitive cells on its upper surface! This animal can seek or avoid sunlight, detect the shadow of a predator, and so on. This attribute would obviously confer a benefit, and would persist in subsequent generations.
This random mutation could have occurred in different places to different animals, so that 'eyes' could have evolved independently in each of them.
Those animals who had random mutations to the nerve tissue around the 'eye' so that 'information' could affect behavior would have a great advantage.
(This implies that animals with only the light-sensitive cells and no more complex nerve adaption would have had only a small benefit: the 'sensation' would stimulate random movement (not purposive movmement) in the animal. This in itself can of course be a small benefit.)
The next stage: the area where the light-sensitive cells exist is overlaid with translucent 'guard' cells so they won't be damaged. We see this in snakes today. A Good Thing, Martha!
Next: The flat light-sensitive patch becomes depressed or cup-like. Now the organism is capable of detecting the direction of source of the light. (Darwin himself came up with this idea.) Another small but significant advantage.
Random mutations to the nerve tissue around the 'eye', if they could result in behavior change, i.e. if they provided 'information' even of a very rumndimentary kind, could affect behavior which would increase the benefit of each modification. Thus structure change leapfrogs nerve tissue change, and vice versa, only persisting if the outcome is beneficial. If not beneficial (and most random mutation would not be beneficial) the feature does not persist in the population.
Next: In those animals who have a protective coating over the sensitive cells, a patch of crystalline proteins form a 'spot' which allows light to pass through the cells and focus on the original light-sensitive cells, the proto-retina. Now we have the prototype of the lens.
And so on.
Thomas Ray, in a computer program called Tierra, showed that a computer program could write itself in a series of random changes if and only if each change had 'feedback' indicating if the change were beneficial or not.
Nature provides that feedback when organisms randomly mutate. The bad mutations either kill the organism or at least put it at a reproductive disadvantage.
That is the important aspect of natural selection that most creationist critics fail to understand when they lodge criticisms such as:
"If I'm building a truck engine, and I randomly throw objects into it, and randomly remove objects from it, even in a million years I will not have a truck that works."
But that's not what evolution does. As each object is thrown into the engine housing, it must convey an improvement in function, however slight, else out it goes. So after a million years, you would have a working engine.
Mind you, it wouldn't be nearly as efficient as a truck engine designed by someone who understood the principles of the internal combustion engine to start with. The 'evolved' engine might have lots of badly functioning parts. But it would work. Sort of like the human spine.
07-24-05, 12:16 PM
newnickname
) The king finds out about it and wishes to see this cat! So the jestur gets their; the cats does his job and the king is most impressed! But the cat notices a mouse and all of the sudden goes after the mouse tearing his clothes and making a mess all over the king!